...most of the reason for that should be obvious.
Another consideration for running every bit of evidence gathered before the jurors may be the anticipation that the defense may use the material that may be revealed in discovery where the prosecution is obligated to produce all evidence they may use in the trial, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions.
The value of the grand jury is really the answer here.
First, it's what the federal government relies on to make a determination of probable cause. Prosecutors run the juries much like they would an actual trial, albeit with more prosecutorial influence than defense, and they measure the value of their evidence against the reaction of the jurors.
In that effort, it's not actually a zero-sum enterprise. What prosecutors are aiming for is unanimity among jurors for an indictment. They don't need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment (depending on the jurisdiction).
The more they're able to influence the grand jury, the better their chances are in regular court. That makes this not just a dilatory process, but more of a deliberative one, in that all of this anxiety about Smith or Garland moving forward should be leavened by the understanding that Smith and his prosecutors are engaged in a literal trial run of their prosecutions.
In that effort, as well, there needs to be a cohesiveness to prosecuting a large number of possible perps whose crimes intersect. You can't just piecemeal out those prosecutions, risking other defendants learning about their own prosecutions through the discovery efforts of the incestuous Trump legal team.
In the docs case, specifically, there are national security concerns that go beyond the FBI interest and blend into the DoJ and other intelligence agencies that oversee the protection of our nation's secrets. That's especially important where there is missing classified material, as well as issues of dissemination to unauthorized or foreign sources. I can't imagine that effort can be rushed into court without addressing those other issues.
Maybe something can be peeled off and isolated, without touching on the national security consequences. I thought it was encouraging to find that numerous staff had been interviewed since late last year, one reportedly in the past week or so.
What I believe is that these investigations are coming to a close and the GJs are going to be moving to a deliberative phase, if they're not already there. It may be that prosecutors want to reveal all of the indictments at once, and some are still being decided. It's not a high standard for jurors, much less than in a trial, so expect a lot of recommendations to indict.
The subpoenaing of Pence and lawyers, and the rest that made the news recently point to a wrapping up, instead of DOJ expecting those close Trump associates to spill anything more.
But they could also be in the process of squeezing recalcitrant witnesses and subjects with threats of asking the grand jury to indict them, much like has been reported in Manhattan. So, it's a process, not just a bunch of legal heads sitting in a room somewhere pondering over when to jump into court.
I can't know what stage they're actually in, but I believe the time taken involves much more than just making a decision whether or not to cut and run from the GJ and move to court. I personally don't know why anyone would want FBI, DOJ or anyone to leave available evidence on the floor, and not present that to jurors, so, due diligence should be the expectation, not just haste.
And this is important:
Prosecutors can proceed without a grand jury rec, but they would then need to convince a judge they had the probable evidence to proceed. A grand jury decision in hand eliminates that requirement.
= new reply since forum marked as read
